Does a university have the right censor students?

Fox News reported the following headline yesterday:

Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed

I was more than a little disturbed when I read that. The government has no right to make a law regarding religion, is it right for a state university to make a rule regarding a student's religion?

From the text of Joshua Rhett Miller's article:

A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.

The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," 

Now, this is not a statement about my own personal beliefs about homosexuality, I will not be addressing that in this post. This is simply about whether or not a university has the right to deny someone an education based on their religious beliefs.  I personally find it to be absolutely abhorrent that a university would even threaten such action. Since when have we lost the right to voice opinions in the classroom. Now, I could understand a little more if the person consistently made hateful, bigoted remarks in class, but Miss Keeton did nothing of the sort.

Another excerpt from the article:

The Code of Ethics prohibits counselors from discriminating based on a number of factors, including gender identity and sexual orientation. "Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students,employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons," the code says.

Keeton's lawsuit alleges that the university's remediation plan noted Keeton's "disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian 'lifestyle,'" as well as Keeton's belief that those "lifestyles" are cases of identity confusion

This begs the question: Does disagreement automatically amount to discrimination? I would suggest that it does not. I can disagree with the lifestyle choices a person makes without refusing them service. So what is the real issue here? Are they really afraid that Miss Keeton will discriminate against people in her practice simply based on sexual orientation? Or are they simply trying to promote "political correctness"? If both sides of the issue can no longer be discussed in a class, what is the point of discussion at all. Ultimately I agree with Miss Keaton's lawyer David French.

From the article:

"A student has a right to express their point of view in and out of class without fear or censorship or expulsion," French said

That's what it comes down to. A student has a right to have and share a point of view without fear of persecution by their educational institution. I hope that educational institutions everywhere see this case and remember that it is not their job to dictate belief, merely to give education, and stay in their place.

Missing the point?

I'm probably not the only one who's ever had the thought, "Maybe politicians have missed the point." In fact I know I'm not, because it comes up over and over again in Bertrand Russell's "Political Ideals". Russell asserts that "The aim of politics is to make the lives of individuals as good as possible."
When I first read that I thought, "What a ridiculous notion." I couldn't imagine why it would be a politician's aim to make my life good. I thought that these kinds of things were only part of liberal ideology. Then, upon giving it further thought, I realized that, in theory, every political ideology is geared at creating that group's idea of a "perfect" world. The problem is that somewhere along the line they forgot about us, the people they represent. They started representing ideas, causes, institutions, and/or industries instead.
Now think for a moment what it would be like, if we were to take the most reasonable, feasible ideals from every party and rolled them into one. Imagine if we had a small government with low taxes, yet we had private charitable programs as a last resort for the poor. Imagine a world where Social Security meant having a family to care for you when you grew old, but there was help
for those without families. Now admittedly this is idealistic, and there would be some level of logistical difficulty, but imagine if our politicians were more bent on creating the best USA possible rather than holding onto their jobs, and beating the other party. What if they stopped playing games and got to the point?

New Party

I have been an independent for a few years now, and I have always wondered why there wasn't some sort of organization for people like me, who are sick of watching the Democrats and Republicans in their dance around the issues without actually fixing anything. Well, today I found the Independence Party of America. A party for independents with the goal to replace incumbents with qualified, non partisan leadership that cares about the concerns of the American people before their own career. I love it! It is just what I have been looking for. More to come, I hope. Lots more.

Spot the Irony...

The NAACP has announced that it will be making a resolution denouncing the Tea Party for it's percieved racist practices. They cite signs (made by INDIVIDUALS) and purported mistreatment of black congressmen (of which further investigation yielded no evidence) as the evidence of racism inherent in the Tea Party; my question is, do a few racist individuals a racist party make?

Now, we have seen some racially charged signs, sure. But where is the NAACP when it comes to the New Black Panthers? Is that "good racism" or do they just prefer to overlook it? If Holder and the DOJ won't touch it, who will? Who can do anything about it? Sure, Holder will send the guy who defended John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, to sue Arizona for "racial profiling" because they are taking a stand against illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and human traffickers, but he won't stand up when the New Black Panthers intimidate white voters at the polls. Who will stand up against the double standard our government has allowed to be set? Equal rights means minority racism is just as bad as white racism, when will they step up and accept responsibility?

My tax dollars at... Hey, what the?!?

So the DOJ has filed a lawsuit because they either find it unconstitutional, or Obama is afraid to go golfing there for fear they'll ask for his birth certificate. (I'm not a birther, but I would love to know why his records are sealed) I would like to send the following to Mr. Holder:
Dear Mr. Holder,
I heard that you are going after Arizona over their immigration law. I hope you lose. I think you are incompetent, and unethical (Black Panther case?) and an Obama crony of the worst kind. I would like to make it known that I do not support you, and if you use my tax dollars to fund this case I will sue you for being unconstitutional.
Sincerely,
One Dude From Utah

Live Long and What?!?

Realizing he's alienated previous supporters, Obama is developing a new target demographic...

Obama must be great at physics

President Obama must be great at theoretical physics, since he appears to be living in some sort of alternate universe. Apparently in this universe it is a good idea for NASA to concern itself with trying to make Muslim nations feel good about their historic contributions to science. Never mind that since they accepted Islam their scientific track record hasn't been great. Never mind that they are told that all the science they need is in the Koran, it is our job to reach out to them.
It seems like Obama is like a kid who buys a dog that bites everyone repeatedly, and rather change the dog's behavior he tries to tell everyone that it's their fault for "being mean" to the dog. What do we have to apologize for? Israel needed help to defend themselves, so we helped. We didn't blow up the Marine barracks in Beirut, their extremists did. We didn't blow up the World Trade Center, their radicals did. What I don't think Obama realizes is that these extremists want us all dead. Now I know there are millions of peaceful Muslims, but they're not the ones we're trying to please, we're trying to please the ones who won't be pleased until our nation is destroyed. It just doesn't make much sense. Oh, well, just another "genius" strategy in a long line of "successes" that will buy him defeat in 2012.

What is the deal?

I have noticed that patriotism seems to be something that our obsession with the politically correct has deemed undesirable. I'm not really sure at what point it happened, but it seems to be a lingering effect of the sixties. I didn't live through it, but it seems like what hippies might describe as flashbacks from a bad trip. I mean, seriously, there was a time when it was okay to love your country, when people at home supported their troops instead of protesting. There was a time when you said the pledge of allegiance in class without worrying that the phrase "One nation under God" might offend someone. So what happened? It's not as though there is nobody alive who remembers these times, my grandparents do. I have to wonder if we aren't trying a little too hard to please people.

Recently there has been an outstanding young man who attends Arlington High School in Massachusetts that has been trying to reverse this trend, seemingly single handedly. I first read about his efforts in an article from FOXNews.com on June 29th, which talked about his successful efforts to put American flags back in the classrooms of his high school. He has also been trying to convince administrators to have students recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom, which has met with a little more resistance. The reason? Administrators fear that some may object to saying the phrase "One nation under God" because of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. So, the administration has offered a solution, to recite the pledge before school in the foyer. The thing I don't understand, is if this young man was asking that the pledge be recited on a voluntary basis, where is the conflict? Nobody is being forced to say the phrase, and if someone has such a big problem with hearing the word "God" they need more help than a school can give them. I have a lot of respect for this kid, who seems to be singlehandedly fighting to restore patriotism in his school. I hope that more people can follow his example, and help those of us who love this country, it's flag, it's troops, and it's Constitution, to spread that love to others.

FOXNews.com articles referenced:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/29/ma-school-officials-wont-let-students-recite-pledge-allegiance/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/29/mass-flag-pledge-resolution/